全部
← Back to Squawk list
Delta CEO says airline will permanently ban passengers 'who refuse to display basic civility'
The CEO of Delta Air Lines has announced that the carrier will permanently ban passengers who disrespect fellow customers or crew. CEO Ed Bastian laid down the law in a memo sent to employees Friday, and shared with Fox News. The executive revealed that the airline has already added over 800 people to its no-fly list for refusing to wear mandatory face masks during travel, along with news of the company's latest policy. (www.foxnews.com) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I hope that means no more clipping toenails, putting feet up on seats, generally piggish behavior. Flight crews have seen it all.....A measure of decorum is in order....finally.
I've seen that for decades. They do nothing. On any airline, in any class of service. People are astonishing.
Unfortunately, a minority of people are just pigs, and they won't be told, 'cos it's against their 'freedum' and 'rights'.
Toenail clippings won't kill you. Refusing to wear a mask might.
Yes. The same as smoking, drinking alcoholic drinks, driving, joining the mile-high-club, and just flying in general. Two of which you can still do on an airplane. Well, maybe still three.
<eyeroll>
Let's see... a national death rate of .07%? No, quite unlikely.
You'll sooner die of cancer or even more likely in an auto accident.
You'll sooner die of cancer or even more likely in an auto accident.
Of the cases in the US that had an outcome, about 3% died and 97% recovered. 0.07% is not correct.
As of today, the most credible source I could find says that there have been 24.7 million covid cases in the US. That same source says that there has been 410,000 deaths. I used to teach high school algebra, so I am confident in saying that 3% isn't correct either. I researched further, and John Hopkins University of Medicine(updated today) supports the 1.7% fatality rate indicated by the preceding numbers.
So, you both can be comforted with the knowledge that the other guy was wrong, too!
So, you both can be comforted with the knowledge that the other guy was wrong, too!
I said "Of the cases that had an outcome". I use this site for my data. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ The people that are still sick could die or could recover, so we just don't know yet how they will affect the calculation. 424,177 dead and 15,222,719 recovered means 2.71% which is "about 3%".
This is how fake news gets started. You probably should stick with a more credible source: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality.
There's so much bad math on your source that it makes my head swim. Using that logic, there are still 9,477,281 people that have COVID RIGHT NOW!. With a daily new case rate of about 200,000 per day, that would mean that EVERYONE who contracted COVID over the past 45 days still has it!
If you go searching for 'recovered' statistics, you will find that they are very incomplete. Large numbers of people get well without ever getting reported. Which is why John Hopkins doesn't use that data to determine morbidity.
I think that it is very clear the 3% number is bogus. Fake news.
There's so much bad math on your source that it makes my head swim. Using that logic, there are still 9,477,281 people that have COVID RIGHT NOW!. With a daily new case rate of about 200,000 per day, that would mean that EVERYONE who contracted COVID over the past 45 days still has it!
If you go searching for 'recovered' statistics, you will find that they are very incomplete. Large numbers of people get well without ever getting reported. Which is why John Hopkins doesn't use that data to determine morbidity.
I think that it is very clear the 3% number is bogus. Fake news.
Using 1.7% would be a more conservative estimate but in reality some people are still sick and will die so the number somewhere in between 1.7% and 3% or rather 2.71%. Certainly 2.71% is more realistic than 0.07%. It's fake news like 0.07% that gives people a false sense of safety and encourages them to be careless and not wear masks and not take other precautions, which will increase the number of cases.
It's nowhere near 2.71%, that's mathematically impossible, which is why that number is not used by credible sources. You're just irresponsibly making up numbers.
Your last statement suggests that you think it is OK to make up fake news to fight fake news. Now, that makes a little more sense. Hypocritical, perhaps, but there is some sense behind it.
Your last statement suggests that you think it is OK to make up fake news to fight fake news. Now, that makes a little more sense. Hypocritical, perhaps, but there is some sense behind it.
My number is not at all fake news. I already showed you my calculation. You may not like the source of my information but in fact it agrees quite closely with your source. If you look at your source, they are getting 1.7% by dividing the number of deaths into the total number of cases. That's not an accurate way to look at it. There are people who are still sick and will die that will raise the result. You may not like my method but it is more accurate than assuming everyone that has the disease still will be just fine.
Interestingly I posted my first comment to dispute someone who said the rate is only 0.07%. That is the fake news. Your number and my number are not so far apart that we should be arguing with each other. We should both be agreeing that 0.07% is not correct and dangerous to promote as the truth.
Interestingly I posted my first comment to dispute someone who said the rate is only 0.07%. That is the fake news. Your number and my number are not so far apart that we should be arguing with each other. We should both be agreeing that 0.07% is not correct and dangerous to promote as the truth.
OK, math master, let's do the math.
How many people are still sick? The number may be out there, but we can responsibly estimate it with what we know. Let's be conservative even, and assume that EVERYONE who has contracted the virus in the past 14 days is still sick and has a probability of dying. Based upon the best data available, there were about 3.15 million cases in the past 14 days. Suppose that you are right, and the death rate is 2.71 percent (we're being even more conservative). That means that there are 85,365 deaths that are 'in the pipeline', people who have been infected, but not died yet.
Adding the 'yet to be dead' number to the 'confirmed dead number' of 410,000, we get an eventual number of dead from those infected to date of 495,365. Dividing that number by the number infected to date gives us 2.0% Worst case.
Still not 2.7%, and much closer to the credible John Hopkins reported (and up to date) mortality rate of 1.7%.
We do agree that the 0.07% number is not the credible COVID mortality rate (unless you subtract out co-morbidities). But, if we are justified in calling out incorrect numbers, we can't play favorites, can we? Exaggeration doesn't serve the truth and ruins credibility. If you want to take comfort in the fact that your fake number of 3% was closer to the truth (1.7%) than Ken's 0.07% number, then by all means feel good about it. But my suggestion is that if you are going to call out falsehoods, take appropriate care to bring the truth.
How many people are still sick? The number may be out there, but we can responsibly estimate it with what we know. Let's be conservative even, and assume that EVERYONE who has contracted the virus in the past 14 days is still sick and has a probability of dying. Based upon the best data available, there were about 3.15 million cases in the past 14 days. Suppose that you are right, and the death rate is 2.71 percent (we're being even more conservative). That means that there are 85,365 deaths that are 'in the pipeline', people who have been infected, but not died yet.
Adding the 'yet to be dead' number to the 'confirmed dead number' of 410,000, we get an eventual number of dead from those infected to date of 495,365. Dividing that number by the number infected to date gives us 2.0% Worst case.
Still not 2.7%, and much closer to the credible John Hopkins reported (and up to date) mortality rate of 1.7%.
We do agree that the 0.07% number is not the credible COVID mortality rate (unless you subtract out co-morbidities). But, if we are justified in calling out incorrect numbers, we can't play favorites, can we? Exaggeration doesn't serve the truth and ruins credibility. If you want to take comfort in the fact that your fake number of 3% was closer to the truth (1.7%) than Ken's 0.07% number, then by all means feel good about it. But my suggestion is that if you are going to call out falsehoods, take appropriate care to bring the truth.
The reason I said about 3% is because when I did the calculation a week or so ago, I got 2.89% I should have calculated with the most recent numbers before I posted and then I would have said 2.71% The calculation is simple. 424,177 deaths. 15,222,719 recoveries. Add the two numbers to get the total number of people with an outcome. 424,177 + 15,222,719 = 15,646,896. Divide 424,177 by 15,646,896 gives 2.71%. I accept the data as presented. What else should I do? Make up a number to support some belief that it's not as bad as it is or it's worse than it is. I am not exaggerating. I am simply calculating.
You keep ignoring the real fact that the 'recoveries' data is extremely inaccurate. If you dig the least bit into it, you'll find all sorts of missing recovery data for specific states. Your calculations can be fine, but garbage in - garbage out. That's why 3%, 2.89%, or 2.71% are all garbage, and no credible health organization is reporting those numbers for the U.S.
If you want to be accurate, use accurate information. If you want to be wrong, use inaccurate data. And if you purposefully use known bad data for your calculations, people are going to think you have an agenda and are willing to do anything to support it.
If you want to be accurate, use accurate information. If you want to be wrong, use inaccurate data. And if you purposefully use known bad data for your calculations, people are going to think you have an agenda and are willing to do anything to support it.
I searched for coronavirus recovery data as you suggested and the first result was the webpage I use as my reference. I suggest you read this page about the data. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/about/ In it you will see how the sources for their data and also see the John Hopkins uses this webpage as a source for their data.
Sure, the recovery data may not be perfect. Also the deaths and cases data are probably not perfect. But I have no reason to believe that any of them are "extremely inaccurate". What you are proposing is to completely ignore the recovery data and assume that EVERYONE has already recovered to get your number of 1.7% Surely you can see that that is more of an exaggeration than using data that might be off slightly.
This will be my last post on this topic. You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. My point in making my first post was to say that 0.07% is way off. It's off by a factor of ~40x. That point has been made. 1.7% and 2.71% are in the same ballpark and 2.71% is more realistic.
Sure, the recovery data may not be perfect. Also the deaths and cases data are probably not perfect. But I have no reason to believe that any of them are "extremely inaccurate". What you are proposing is to completely ignore the recovery data and assume that EVERYONE has already recovered to get your number of 1.7% Surely you can see that that is more of an exaggeration than using data that might be off slightly.
This will be my last post on this topic. You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. My point in making my first post was to say that 0.07% is way off. It's off by a factor of ~40x. That point has been made. 1.7% and 2.71% are in the same ballpark and 2.71% is more realistic.
Actually, Dan, while you find fault with the recovery data that Bill gleaned from a reputable source, you turn around and ASSUME that everyone who contracted the virus in the past 14 days is still infected. The actual recovery time is 21 to 28 days and even longer for those over 60.
For reasons of public safety, I would rather have an estimate on the high end of the scale, simply to effect positive public cooperation in mitigating the spread of the virus. Those who tend to underestimate the deadliness of the virus do, in fact, have a completely different, and more dangerous agenda, and don't care who it may hurt.
For reasons of public safety, I would rather have an estimate on the high end of the scale, simply to effect positive public cooperation in mitigating the spread of the virus. Those who tend to underestimate the deadliness of the virus do, in fact, have a completely different, and more dangerous agenda, and don't care who it may hurt.
